Air-to-Air Piper Arrow

Lowflynjack

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,309
Display Name
Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
Shot a local plane yesterday for Pipers magazine. Was a fun shoot!

49779304377_bdd71ba9f7_b.jpg

49778444338_8c008083d0_b.jpg

49779302752_a4bccf5daa_b.jpg

49778441528_c5f2868ea7_b.jpg

49778440948_d4820f1354_b.jpg

49778968181_24e05eba76_b.jpg

49779296787_423b60c459_b.jpg

49779295707_abecbd212f_b.jpg

49778432898_b27e4fe143_b.jpg
 
Wonderful photos, Jack. You are a master with the highlights from the low sun angles.

One small nit to pick, if I may. This is not an Arrow II; by serial number it's a 1971 Arrow 200. The Arrow II was the 1972-76 version with longer fuselage, dorsal fin, wings and stabilator.
 
The side of the plane says it’s an Arrow II! That’s all I went by!
 
Great photos, and that thing is boss. Like mine (a 72). Straight wing and big stabilator look so cool. And my nose gear doors don’t close perfectly either.
 
Nice work as usual Jack...I miss my Arrow...
 
Great shots! Bums me out with Pipers in general, kinda like Chrysler products, good engineering, crappy QC. Look at nose gear doors and speaking of doors, look at the cabin door. But the photography was awesome Jack
 
Polarisguy said:
Great shots! Bums me out with Pipers in general, kinda like Chrysler products, good engineering, crappy QC. Look at nose gear doors and speaking of doors, look at the cabin door. But the photography was awesome Jack
Click to expand...

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. The thing wasn't meant to go to the moon and re-enter the atmosphere, where hypersonic streamline discontinuities make the difference between life and death. Lapped skins and protruding rivets were all part of the cost savings in manufacturing when they went with the PA-28 line. A lot of people forget that airfoil was actually laminar, but the skin and fastening techniques used were not prescribed for it and defeat the camber profile, which was otherwise selected for cabin seating reasons. Even so, compared to the more expensive to manufacture and much higher part-count Comanche, it was a success. There's a bunch other purposely applied cuts to the PA-28 line that were done for economic reasons (narrow cabin width being the big one, lack of retract on the dakota being the other one, both to shelter the Comanche then Lance sales, respectively). Hard to win the beauty pageant when your parents threw a pot of boiling water on your face as a baby. The point I'm making to you is that these failings as you see them, weren't the bug, but the feature as far as Piper was concerned. They could care less what personal travelers who pine over the canard of "bonanza quality" think about finish. They weren't the target market.

Flush riveting and more aesthetically pleasing forms of butting sheet metal is labor intensive, for little gained in the aggregate. Ditto for largely cosmetic nose gear doors hinged to the cowling. Financially speaking, the Arrow was a wild commercial success in the complex trainer market; the fact we largely use them as orphaned hamburger grabbers in post-PTS 2020 is beside the point of the airplane in its inception. Some 3rd party vendors have done some finishing work on stock samples and made them de facto M20F/Js in cruise speed, at a very large capex investment for measly 10 knots. But that's certified aviation for ya.
 
Polarisguy said:
Great shots! Bums me out with Pipers in general, kinda like Chrysler products, good engineering, crappy QC. Look at nose gear doors and speaking of doors, look at the cabin door. But the photography was awesome Jack
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t judge people’s planes, I take photos of them. I’m pretty sure you can’t judge Piper for gear doors on a plane from the 70s!! I will also say you’re wrong about the door. That’s a new seal and was designed that way. I know because I thought it was open.
 
Pilawt said:
Wonderful photos, Jack. You are a master with the highlights from the low sun angles.

One small nit to pick, if I may. This is not an Arrow II; by serial number it's a 1971 Arrow 200. The Arrow II was the 1972-76 version with longer fuselage, dorsal fin, wings and stabilator.
Click to expand...

Very true! This is my plane. Some previous owner put an Arrow II decal on it. Maybe I can paint over or scrape off the “II” as it does bother me. Also, the registration lists it as a ‘71 model, but it rolled off the line in Nov of ‘70. Not sure about that one either...
 
Polarisguy said:
Great shots! Bums me out with Pipers in general, kinda like Chrysler products, good engineering, crappy QC. Look at nose gear doors and speaking of doors, look at the cabin door. But the photography was awesome Jack
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the nose gear doors need to be adjusted, so not really a QC issue. The adjustment can get off when the lower cowling is removed. It seems it is not that noticeable on jacks, but when air is pushing on it, it shows itself. The main door seal is made by AvTek and is a temporary solution to a dented area on the inner door frame that results in a poor seal with the standard one. Needs a little body work to really fix. The door fit was probably much better in 1970.
 
Great pictures! The Arrow looks like an airplane is supposed to look like, if you know what I mean. Not a bad line on it.
 
Polarisguy said:
Bums me out with Pipers in general, kinda like Chrysler products, good engineering, crappy QC. Look at nose gear doors and speaking of doors, look at the cabin door.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the nose gear doors is an adjustment issue and therefore were likely perfect when they left the factory umpteen years ago and therefore a potential issue for any retractable owner. Can't really hold Piper accountable for that. Might not even be able to hold the current owner accountable depending on what the wind does vs static in a hangar up on jacks. The door seal? Its so uniform that I kind of suspect its some sort of aftermarket thing. Believe me I always find Pipers lacking as compared to other brands, but I don't think anything in these pics should lead one to conclude that Piper as a brand or Arrow as a model should be avoided.
 
Cole Weatherby said:
the registration lists it as a ‘71 model, but it rolled off the line in Nov of ‘70. Not sure about that one either...
Click to expand...
Congrats on a pretty airplane. I've always regarded the Arrow as a comfortable, economical machine.

The FAA registration database on yours says "MFR YEAR 1970" -- but that's only a reference to the calendar year in which the Certificate of Airworthiness was first issued, and has nothing to do with the manufacturer's model year (likewise my '78 172N was built in October 1977, and shows up in FAA records as "1977").

By serial number it's in the 1971 model year, when the ads called it "Cherokee Arrow 200B". Piper changed their serial number format in 1971. Beginning that year, the first two digits after the "28-" were the model year. The next two digits identified which Cherokee variant it was. For the Arrow 180 Piper arbitrarily used '30' and for the Arrow 200 it was '35'. So the Arrow 180 serials for the 1971 model year were 28-7130001 through 28-713013 (when production of the 180 hp Arrow was discontinued); and '71 Arrow 200s were 28-7135001 through 28-7135229.

By the way, actor Leonard Nimoy once owned and flew a 1971 Cherokee Arrow 200. The recent documentary "For The Love of Spock" on Netflix includes some family home movie footage of him in the airplane.
 
Yeah mine's the same way, serial number prefix 73, but it's registered as a 1974 arrow ii.

Pre-72 arrow 200s are a bit of a rarity in the market today. They're kind of the m20e of the arrow lineup.they should also be the fastest of the NA arrows, though 20hp isnt really gonna do much for speed over the arrow 180. The shorter wingspan over the III seems to account for most of the speed difference, the cabin stretch didn't really increase the wetted area a relevant amount.
 
Data point: My '69 Arrow 200 s/n is 35316 and is the straight wing, "short" fuselage, auto-extend gear (since removed) 200hp IO-360. Airworthiness certificate is "1969" although I have no idea exactly when it was built.
 
Arrow76R said:
Data point: My '69 Arrow 200 s/n is 35316 and is the straight wing, "short" fuselage, auto-extend gear (since removed) 200hp IO-360. Airworthiness certificate is "1969" although I have no idea exactly when it was built.
Click to expand...
You have the 316th of the 392 Arrow 200s built in the 1969 model year. They skipped the numbers 35393-35600 and started a new sequence at 35601 for the 1970 model year.

Arrow 180s had a separate serial number sequence - 30004 through 31135 and 31251 through 31270.
 
I'm still planning on setting up something for my Arrow (a real Arrow II). In annual now. Waiting to get the bolt holes checked.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah mine's the same way, serial number prefix 73, but it's registered as a 1974 arrow ii.

Pre-72 arrow 200s are a bit of a rarity in the market today. They're kind of the m20e of the arrow lineup.they should also be the fastest of the NA arrows, though 20hp isnt really gonna do much for speed over the arrow 180. The shorter wingspan over the III seems to account for most of the speed difference, the cabin stretch didn't really increase the wetted area a relevant amount.
Click to expand...

Arrow76R said:
Data point: My '69 Arrow 200 s/n is 35316 and is the straight wing, "short" fuselage, auto-extend gear (since removed) 200hp IO-360. Airworthiness certificate is "1969" although I have no idea exactly when it was built.
Click to expand...

Pilawt said:
You have the 316th of the 392 Arrow 200s built in the 1969 model year. They skipped the numbers 35393-35600 and started a new sequence at 35601 for the 1970 model year.

Arrow 180s had a separate serial number sequence - 30004 through 31135 and 31251 through 31270.
Click to expand...

All my complex time is in a single Arrow. The club used to have a PA-28R-200, a 1969 model. Serial number is 28R-35054, N9351N. We sold it a number of years ago and it is now based in southern CA. Something about the rudders to seat angle (?) and 3 hours was my limit. Anything longer and it was all I could do to crawl out, my knees were shot. I never bounced a landing in that thing. Once the mains touched down it was finished flying. Never had more than 1 person up front, never had a passenger in the back seat. Sure could haul a load that way.
 
Great photos Jack. Was that a husband wife in the plane? Always like it when the wife goes along

gary
 
Well mine bought both my first plane, told me we needed to upgrade to a faster plane for longer trips, and then told me that it would be nice of I got my instrument rating to make it easier to take the long trips.

She’s been spoiling me for 45 years.

Gary
 
Nice pictures...but I learned in a PA-28, so I think I'll always be partial.
 
Yikes! The article says Vso is 45 kts. That's about 10 kts low! "...you needn't feel out of your depth flying approaches at 60 kts..." Well, with a Vso of 56kts, 60kts is cutting it just a little close.

Also, the owner's perspective talks about a "CO2" detector. You'd think editors of an aviation magazine would catch that.

I know, I know -- I wish details didn't bother me so much. It's a nice article about my favorite airplane, with some great photos!
 
pburger said:
Yikes! The article says Vso is 45 kts. That's about 10 kts low! "...you needn't feel out of your depth flying approaches at 60 kts..." Well, with a Vso of 56kts, 60kts is cutting it just a little close.

Also, the owner's perspective talks about a "CO2" detector. You'd think editors of an aviation magazine would catch that.

I know, I know -- I wish details didn't bother me so much. It's a nice article about my favorite airplane, with some great photos!
Click to expand...
My disclaimer is... I just take the photos! The owner of the plane is @Cole Weatherby... he didn't say it was a CO2 detector... they edited it to say that!! He spotted it quickly!

Cole Weatherby Looks like they did some over-editing of my article and changed carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, and CO to CO2. Now everyone is going to think I don't know my aeromedical factors!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top